1)

(a)If a Ketanah accepts Kidushin without her father's consent, Rav permits either her or her father to retract. What does Rav Asi say?

(b)What exactly is the case over which they are arguing?

(c)What does the Tana of the Beraisa extrapolate from the double Lashon of the Pasuk in Mishpatim (in connection with a man who seduces a girl) "Im Ma'ein Yema'ein Avihah Lesitah Lo"?

(d)How does Rav Huna (or Chiya bar Rav) try to prove Rav Asi wrong from there?

1)

(a)If a Ketanah accepts Kidushin without her father's consent, Rav permits either her or her father to retract. Rav Asi restricts the right to do so to her father.

(b)They are arguing over a case where after the daughter has retracted from the Kidushin, her father gives his consent.

(c)The Tana of the Beraisa extrapolates from the double Lashon of the Pasuk (in connection with a man who seduces a girl) "Im Ma'ein sYema'ein Avihah Lesitah Lo" that it is not only the father who can invalidate the Kidushin of the seducer to his daughter, but also rthe daughter herself.

(d)Rav Huna (or Chiya bar Rav) queries Rav Asi from because he assumes that the Pasuk is speaking about our very case (where the man seduced the girl [without the father's consent] with the intention of seducing her), yet she is able to negate the Kidushin.

2)

(a)How does Rav himself establish the Pasuk, in defense of Rav Asi?

(b)How does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explain the Pasuk, to circumvent the Kashya as to why we need a Pasuk to teach us that if the man seduced her without betrothing her, either she or her father can object to the betrothal? Is that not obvious?

(c)What does Rav Yosef mean when he says 'I Hachi, Haynu di'Tenina "Mahor Yimharenah lo l'Ishah", she'Tzerichah Heymenu Kidushin'?

(d)How does Abaye refute this proof?

2)

(a)Rav defends Rav Asi, by establishing the Pasuk where the initial seduction was not intended to serve as Kidushin (but was performed purely for pleasure).

(b)To circumvent the Kashya as to why we need a Pasuk to teach us that if the man seduced her without betrothing her, either she or her father can object to the betrothal, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains it is not the betrothal that took place that they are coming to negate, but one that is imminent, and it comes to teach us that nevertheless, the seducer remains obligated to pay the full penalty.

(c)When Rav Yosef says 'I Hachi, Haynu di'Tenina "Mahor Yimharenah Lo le'Ishah", she'Tzerichah Heymenu Kidushin' he means to support the previous explanation with this Beraisa, which clearly maintains that the seduction was purely for pleasure and not as a betrothal.

(d)Abaye refutes this proof however on the grounds that even if it was performed as a betrothal, the Beraisa would be informing us that another Kidushin is necessary, with the express consent of the father.

3)

(a)What does our Mishnah rule in a case where a man says to a woman...

1. ... 'Hiskadshi li bi'Temarah Zu, Hiskadshi li b'Zu'?

2. ... 'Hiskadshi li b'Zu, b'Zu b'Zu'?

(b)Who is the author of the Mishnah?

(c)The Tana concludes 'Hayesah Ocheles Rishonah Rishonah, Einah Mekudeshes ad she'Yehei b'Achas Meihen Shaveh Perutah'. To which section of the Mishnah does this appear to pertain, to the Reisha ('Hiskadshi li b'Zu ... Hiskadshi li b'Zu') or to the Seifa ('Hiskadshi li b'Zu b'Zu ... ')?

(d)What do we mean when we ask 'va'Afilu b'Kamaisa?'

(e)What does Rebbi Yochanan mean when he comments 'Harei Shulchan, Harei Basar, Harei Sakin, v'Ein Lanu Mah Le'echol'?

3)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that, in a case where a man says to a woman ...'

1. ... 'Hiskadshi Li bi'Temarah Zu, Hiskadshi Li be'Zu' if one of the dates is worth a Perutah, the woman is betrothed.

2. ... 'Hiskadshi Li be'Zu, be'Zu be'Zu' she is betrothed even if it is only their combined value that amounts to a Perutah.

(b)The author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Shimon (who holds that only 'Hiskadshi' by each date is considered a P'rat (to reckon each date individually, as we discussed above).

(c)The Tana concludes the Mishnah with 'Haysah Ocheles Rishonah Rishonah Einah Mekudeshes ad she'Yehei be'Achas Meihen Shaveh Perutah'. At first glance this pertains to the Seifa ('Hiskadshi Li be'Zu be'Zu ... '), because as far as the Reisha is concerned ('Hiskadshi Li be'Zu ... Hiskadshi Li be'Zu'), each date is considered a P'rat, even if she did not eat it.

(d)When we ask 'va'Afilu be'Kamaisa' we mean to ask how it will possibly help if the first date is worth a Perutah, seeing as the Kidushin does not take effect until she has received all the dates; since it transpires that, in the meantime, the first dates are on loan, in which case we will apply the principle 'ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh Einah Mekudeshes'.

(e)When Rebbi Yochanan comments 'Harei Shulchan, Harei Basar Harei Sakin, ve'Ein Lanu Mah Le'echol', he means that we have here a compete Mishnah, but are unable to understand it.

4)

(a)How do Rav and Shmuel then connect 'Hayesah Ocheles Rishonah Rishonah ... ' with the Reisha ('Hiskadshi Li b'Zu ... Hiskadshi Li b'Zu') in spite of the problem of ha'Mekadesh b'Milveh'?

(b)Rebbi Ami connects it with the Seifa. How does he then answer the Kashya 'va'Afilu b'Kamaysa'?

4)

(a)Rav and Shmuel connects 'Haysah Ocheles Rishonah Rishonah ... ' with the Reisha ('Hiskadshi Li be'Zu ... Hiskadshi Li be'Zu') in spite of the problem of ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh' because the Tana comes to teach us that even after she has eaten them, she is not Mekudeshes if none of them is worth a Perutah, in spite of the fact that she received immediate benefit.

(b)Rebbi Ami connects it with the Seifa. And he answers the Kashya 'va'Afilu be'Kamaysa by explaining that when the Tana says 'be'Schas Meihen', he means specifically the last date (which is not a loan).

5)

(a)Rava extrapolates from Rebbi Ami that 'ha'Mekadesh b'Milveh, Einah Mekudeshes'. What does he extrapolate with regard to 'ha'Mekadesh b'Milveh u'Perutah'?

(b)And finally, he learns from Rebbi Ami's words that 'Ma'os b'Alma Chozrim'. What does this mean?

(c)How does he learn it it from there?

5)

(a)Rava extrapolates from Rebbi Ami that 'ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh, Einah Mekudeshes' but that 'ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh u'Perutah, Da'atah a'Perutah' (and she is Mekudeshes).

(b)And finally, he infers from Rebbi Ami's words that 'Ma'os be'Alma Chozrim' meaning that, if for some reason, the Kidushin does not take effect, then it is a Pikadon, which must be returned, and not a gift ...

(c)... because if the money was a gift, then how could we refer to it as a loan that must be returned?

46b----------------------------------------46b

6)

(a)According to Rav, if someone betroths his sister, the money is a Pikadon and must be returned. What does Shmuel say?

(b)In which point do they both agree?

(c)If he wanted to give her the money ...

1. ... as a Pikadon, according to Rav, why did he not say so?

2. ... as a gift, according to Shmuel, why did he not say so?

6)

(a)According to Rav, if someone betroths his sister, the money is a Pikadon and must be returned. Shmuel says that the money is a gift.

(b)They both agree that everyone knows that the Kidushin is not valid.

(c)Even though he wanted to give her the money ...

1. ... as a Pikadon, according to Rav, he did not say so because he figured that she might not want to accept the responsibility (though it is hard to understand then, what he thought when he gave it to her, seeing as she did not accept it as a Pikadon, in which case she will be Patur from all liability.

2. ... as a gift, according to Shmuel, he not say so because he thought that she would be too embarrassed to accept it.

7)

(a)From where do we know that Chalah must be taken from dough and not from flour?

(b)The Mishnah in Chalah says that if someone separates Chalah from flour and gives it to the Kohen, not only has he not fulfilled his obligation, but the Kohen is obligated to return it. What do we now ask on Shmuel from this Mishnah?

(c)We answer that Chalah is different inasmuch as not returning the flour will result in the Kohen sinning. Which sin does this referring to?

(d)And how do we reconcile the Kohen's mistake with what we said earlier (that everyone knows that one does not take Chalah from flour)?

7)

(a)We know that Chalah must be taken from dough and not from flour from the Pasuk in Sh'lach Lecha 'Reishis Arisoseichem".

(b)The Mishnah in Chalah says that if someone separates Chalah from flour and gives it to the Kohen, not only has he not fulfilled his obligation, but the Kohen is obligated to return it a Kashya on Shmuel, according to whom one would have expected the Tana to say that, since everyone knows that one cannot take Chalah from flour, the flour is a gift in the hands of the Kohen.

(c)We answer that Chalah is different, inasmuch as not returning the flour will result in the Kohen sinning because he may go on to combine it with less than a Shiur of flour to make a dough with a Shiur. However, he will mistakenly believe the flour that he received to be Chalah, in which case his fresh dough will not be subject to Chalah (whereas in reality, his dough is real Tevel).

(d)Even though we said earlier that everyone knows that one does not take Chalah from flour they will not necessarily know why. The Kohen will think that the flour really is Chalah, only Chazal decreed otherwise for the Kohen's benefit (a benefit which he is willing to forego).

8)

(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Beshalach "v'ha'Omer Asiris ha'Eifah Hu"?

(b)How many ...

1. ... Sa'ah are there in an Eifah?

2. ... Kabin in a Sa'ah?

3. ... Lugin in a Kav?

4. ... Beitzim in a Lug?

(c)How much did they subsequently add to the measurements ...

1. ... in Yerushalayim?

2. ... in Tzipori?

(d)What is then the Shi'ur Chalah in Lugin in terms of ...

1. ... the Yerushalmi Shi'ur?

2. ... the Tzipori Shi'ur?

8)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Beshalach "ve'ha'Omer Asiris ha'Eifah Hu" the Shiur Chalah (which we see here, was the regular dough in the Desert, and was what the Torah refers to when it writes "Reishis Arisoseichem").

(b)There are ...

1. ... three Sa'ah in an Eifah.

2. ... six Kabin in a Sa'ah.

3. ... four Lugin in a Kav.

4. ... six Beitzim in a Lug (the Si'man for this is 'Gudu').

(c)They subsequently added to the measurements ...

1. ... a sixth in Yerushalayim (though we refer to this as a fifth).

2. ... a sixth in Tzipori (which again, we refer to as a fifth).

(d)The Shiur Chalah in terms of ...

1. ... the Yerushalmi Shiur is six Lugin.

2. ... the Tzipori Shiur is five Lugin.

9)

(a)The Mishnah in Demai rules in the case of 'min ha'Nakuv Al she'Eino Nakuv, Terumah'. What does the Tana add to this?

(b)Why does the Tana in Chalah ('ha'Mafrish Chalaso Kemach ... ', that we discussed a little earlier) not issue the same ruling as the Tana in Demai? How do we initially differentiate between the two cases?

(c)Alternatively, it is not the Kohen we are worried about, but that the Yisrael who gave him the flour might sin. Which sin are we talking about?

(d)Why are we ...

1. ... worried about the Yisrael? In light of what we said earlier (that everyone knows that one cannot separate Chalah from flour), why would he make such a mistake?

2. ... not then worried (in the Mishnah in Demai) about the Kohen making a mistake?

9)

(a)The Mishnah in D'mai rules in the case of 'min ha'Nakuv al she'Eino Nakuv Terumah', to which the Tana adds ve'Yachzor ve'Yitrom.

(b)Initially, we explain that the Tana in Chalah ('ha'Mafrish Chalaso Kemach ... ', that we discussed a little earlier) does not issue the same ruling as the Tana in D'mai because when the discrepancy occurs in one vessel, the current owner will not take such a ruling seriously, and will not respond.

(c)Alternatively, it is not the Kohen we are worried about, but that the Yisrael who gave him the flour might sin by assuming that the flour that he subsequently baked has duly been rectified, and will go on to eat Tevel.

(d)We are ...

1. ... worried about the Yisrael (in spite of what we said earlier (that everyone knows that one cannot separate Chalah from flour) because he may make the mistake of thinking that it is the Rabbanan who negated the Din Chalah from the flour to spare the Kohen the extra work, and that he has the right override their decree, by undertaking to bake it for him (in which case the Chalah is valid).

2. ... not worried (in the Mishnah in D'mai) about the Kohen making such a mistake due to the principle 'Kohanim Zerizim Heim'.

10)

(a)What does the Tana in Demai rule in a case of 'min she'Eino Nakuv Al ha'Nakuv'?

(b)Then why did the Tana in Chalah make the Kohen return the Chalah? Why did he not issue the same ruling as the Tana in Demai?

(c)And what does the Tana in Terumos rule in the case of 'ha'Torem Kishos v'Nimtza Marah, Avati'ach, v'Nimtza Saru'ach'? What is his source for this?

(d)But did we not just say that when the discrepancy occurs in one vessel (such as here), the owner will not listen if he is told to separate a second time?

10)

(a)The Tana in D'mai rules in a case of 'min she'Eino Nakuv al ha'Nakuv Terumah ve'Yachzor ve'Yitrom'.

(b)The reason that the Tana in Chalah makes the Kohen return the Chalah (rather than issue the same ruling as the Tana in D'mai) is because the discrepancy occurred in one vessel, as we just explained.

(c)The Tana in T'rumos rules in the case of 'ha'Torem Kishos ve'Nimtza Marah, Avati'ach, ve'Nimtza Saru'ach Terumah ve'Yachzor ve'Yitrom', and he learns it from the Pasuk in Korach "ve'Lo Sisa Alav Chet, be'Harimchem es Chelbo Mimenu" ('Im Eino Kadosh, Nesi'us Chet Lamah'?)

(d)What we just said that when the discrepancy occurs in one vessel (such as here), the owner will not respond if he is told to separate a second time will not apply in the latter case, because min ha'Torah, his separation was valid, in which case, were we to declare it Tevel, he may replace it with the rest of his crops to separate Terumah a second time. On the other hand, we do need to worry that he might transgress an Isur d'Oraysa by not taking Terumah again.